INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES

Date: December 13, 2000

Time: 12:00-2:00

Location: Kerr Hall – Room 283

 

1.      Welcome and Introductions

a)     Members Present:  Scottie Brookie, Mark Cianca, Kathleen Dettman, Bill Hyder, Pat LeCuyer, Charles McDowell, Larry Merkley, Terry Schalk, Robert White

b)     Staff Present:  Stephen Hull, Max Ritchie - P&B Strategic Planning

c)      Guests:  Greg Scott – CATS Network & Telecommunications Services

 

2.      ITC Chair Update:  Larry provided an updated list of ITC-related actions since the November 28 meeting.

a)     Corporate Time:  The ITC recommendations have been formally made to John Simpson.  It will be considered for approval at the next PAC meeting scheduled in January.

b)     Computer Equipment Disposal:  Larry met with Computing Coordinator representatives and Lisa Rose regarding responsible recycling and disposal of campus computing equipment.  Lisa Rose has indicated that there is a process in place.  Steve Goldie, the Surplus Coordinator is responsible for the appropriate processing of such equipment.  Lisa Rose is working on a document that can be discussed with the Computing Coordinators.  Larry is in contact with Lisa as this progresses.

c)      ITC Note Review:  Larry reminded the committee of the ITC meeting note process.  After Steve and Larry have reviewed them, they will be sent to the committee for review.  Corrections and additions should be submitted to Larry and Steve no later than two working days after the notes have been sent out.  After that time the notes will be posted to the ITC website.

d)     Financial Analyst:  Interviews for the financial analyst to be assigned to ITC are currently in progress.

e)     Gradebook:  Discussions related to the adoption of Gradebook are still under review.  It has been difficult to establish a common meeting time.  Larry met with the vendor representative but a formal demonstration of the product is still to be arranged.

f)        Holiday Plans:  Larry informed ITC that he is leaving Santa Cruz on Thursday, 12/14/00, and returning just prior to the next scheduled ITC meeting, which is on 1/9/01.  He will be available by email if necessary.

g)     Next Meeting Time:  A brief discussion with the committee members determined that the best time for the next series of meetings will continue to be on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month from 12:00-2:OO PM.

 

3.      Strategic Planning Matrix – Larry Merkley and Steve Hull - Committee Process.

a)     The committee discussed the Campus Information Technology Vision statement adopted by the campus several years ago.  It was agreed that this is a valuable planning document, but does not go far enough in defining the way in which the committee can review specific items, and set item review priorities.

b)     Larry talked the committee through the set of sample documents prepared in order to discuss IT committee Strategic Planning processes.   These documents included:

i)        A sample of University IT Concepts fundamental to IT Mission and goals.

ii)      A Review Form that identifies critical information necessary to support an effective IT Item Review, and establishes criteria on which the review could be based.

iii)    Descriptions of each of the criteria listed on the Review Form.

iv)    An ITC Item Priority Summary Table designed to put all review items into a common matrix for comparison and ranking purposes.

v)      A Possible Item Category Structure Table that demonstrates how IT Review Items could be sorted into hierarchical categories of strategic importance.  Also included were examples of other item criteria as adopted by other universities.

vi)    An ITC Cross-Criteria Review Form that applied a two dimensional matrix based on Item Cost and Strategic Importance.  Items could be placed within this construct, facilitating the prioritization process.

c)      Points of discussion included the following:

i)        A discussion of the report forms noted that the Cross-Criteria Review form was very good but the detailed lists, item categories, and Review forms could be brought into a more consistent whole.

ii)      The distinction between First-time costs and Ongoing maintenance costs should be specifically addressed in any review.

iii)    Review costs should include personnel costs as well as dollars.

iv)    How will ITC rank strategic planning criteria?

v)      Item and goal dependencies and interdependencies should be clearly identified and incorporated into the prioritization process.

vi)    It would help to have a set of statements articulating the vision of IT consistent with the campus vision.  Items such as:

vii)    Attracting top Faculty

viii)    Attracting top Graduate Students

ix)    Addressing student enrollment growth

x)      The ITC should commit itself to a proactive and strategic approach to item review, prioritization, and counsel, rather than assuming a reactive position in which each item is addressed independently.

d)     The discussion then led to a commitment that establishing a vision and goal framework along with a consistent set of review processes is critical to a proactive and effective performance.

i)        Thought should be given to how “technology” can best participate in the achievement of institutional goals, bearing in mind there are certain issues that technological solutions are not good at solving.

ii)      The committee will build a “list of lessons” which can guide future recommendations.

iii)    The committee will establish a set of clear and detailed “Guidelines” for new projects that are brought to the ITC.

iv)    The committee will pursue a variety of methods to identify what are presently the “big opportunities.”  We will start this process by identifying key issues from among the ITC membership.

e)     At the conclusion of the meeting Steve Hull distributed a compilation of IT Guidelines or Principles developed by IT planning groups at other universities.

 

Action:  Each ITC member will identify the Top 3-5 IT Opportunities the committee needs to take on this year, along with the criteria on which these choices were based.  Members will email their lists to Larry Merkley by Wednesday, January 3, 200l.  These will be compiled and distributed in preparation for the next meeting.

Action: Larry Merkley will begin to draft a set of IT Standards Statements for review by the committee at a future meeting.

 

4.      AIS - Transition Team and Process – Larry Merkley

a)     Larry reported that Vice Chancellor Hernandez is still conducting research in order to make a final decision on the purchase of the new AIS.  There is no timeline for his decision at this time.

b)     Larry has proposed to Hernandez and Executive Vice Chancellor Simpson that an AIS Transition Team be established to address the issues that require resolution before the system implementation process begins.  Both Hernandez and Simpson have voiced their approval for the formation of such a group.

c)      The committee identified several concerns which they believe the AIS Transition Team could address:

i)        What will the impact of this system implementation have on the structure of CATS?

ii)      How will it shape the architecture of the entire campus information system?

iii)    What campus information interdependencies are there and how shall the campus best address these?

iv)    Where will the money go for the implementation and ongoing maintenance of AIS? (e.g. CATS, Student Affairs, etc.)

v)      How do we prepare for a new Enterprise Model and the Portal approach to information access and delivery?

d)    A number of key individuals on campus were identified as potential candidates for such a committee, including the team chair.

e)     It was noted during the discussion about the AIS transition team that there was no user representative contemplated, and some members felt that there should be one.  It was generally agreed that in fact a user rep on the transition team would in fact be a good idea and that efforts to recruit a user member would be initiated.

f)        The committee agreed that the AIS Transition Team be established as quickly as possible since there are a number of issues which do not require a specific system or vendor in order to deliberate.

 

Action: Larry Merkley and Mark Cianca will begin the process of recruiting and initiating this group.

 

5.      Campus Wiring Standards for Physical Science Building Construction – Pat LeCuyer and Greg Scott

a)     Pat LeCuyer and Greg Scott presented a very informative set of documents outlining CATS concerns regarding the wiring standard decisions currently being made on impending construction projects.  Specifically these include planned wiring for the new:

i)        Physical Sciences Building

ii)      Interdisciplinary Sciences Building

iii)    Center for Adaptive Optics

Wiring Standards     Wiring Letter

b)     Pat and Greg indicated that not only are the communication wiring standards being considered for inclusion in these projects substandard by existing nationally recognized standards, these national standards are rapidly being upgraded as new information technology demands are being made.  This trend becomes problematic as new technology makes even greater demands on older and current standards.

c)      Substandard wiring infrastructure can negatively impact the campus goals related to achieving “tier-one” university status, supporting new and innovative academic programs, and the recruitment of top quality faculty and students.

d)     Recommendations included the following:

i)        Long Term Recommendations:

(1)    All future university construction should use fiber as well as copper wiring.

(2)    All future university construction plans should include thorough lifecycle planning in order to realistically assess the economic impact of installing substandard wiring into new construction, and budget for regular upgrades.

ii)      Short Term Recommendations:

(1)    Current plans should keep all wiring closets and pathways sufficiently large to accommodate the installation of Fiber in the future.

(2)    The Physical Science Building project should incorporate fiber in its construction plans now.

(3)    The Interdisciplinary Building should we wired with Category 5E rather than the currently scheduled Category 5.

(4)    The Adapted Optics Building standards should be determined when the construction date is closer, and should be Category 5E if funding can be established.

(5)    If no upgrade funding for these projects is forthcoming, some of the cost of upgrade could be accomplished on a short-term basis from existing wiring funding from the state.  This should be considered an emergency effort to solve an immediate crisis, rather than a permanent, or long-term practice.  This option will be discussed with administration to determine whether this is necessary or viable.

 

Action:   Pat LeCuyer (CATS) will prepare a paper on the strategic importance of campus wiring standards as they apply to campus information system architecture, to be circulated to the IRC

Action:   Larry Merkley will take this issue to PAC in an effort to resolve short-term concerns and long-term standards.

 

6.      Next Meeting:  Tuesday, January 9, 2001, 12:00-2:00, McHenry Library, Room 481

 

7.      Adjournment:  2:00 PM